Brief assessment of an online dialogue

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | January 11, 2026

 

 

In a previous post, we had issued an open invitation to the readers of the blog to explore the following topic:

"To what extent is it necessary to make a clear and conscious distinction, in the anti-ecumenist texts that are published, between the theological refutation of heresy and the condemnation of persons who have not been synodally judged, but who publicly and without concealment teach the heresy of Ecumenism?"

(https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_84.html)

Making a brief assessment of all the comments that were published—including in the previous post at the electronic address: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/m.html—we publish the following conclusions, after evaluating 32 comments. We thank the readers who participated in this dialogue, which, of course, did not exhaust the subject under investigation, because the participation of all anti-ecumenist groups is required. For us, it is a beginning, and that is what matters.

Conclusions

A. The comments that were published express an intense confessional zeal and a deep desire to defend the Orthodox faith. The fundamental observation that Ecumenism constitutes an ecclesiological deviation is not merely an opinion, but a dogmatically substantiated judgment, which is fully aligned with traditional patristic and synodal experience. The recognition of the objective difference between Orthodox doctrine and heresy is a foundation of the Church, for faith cannot be defended without a clear distinction.

B. In contemporary discourse, an ecclesiological disagreement is often observed in the handling of crises. Synodality—that is, the process of judgment and manifestation of faith through the Synod—is being diminished, while individual or collective certainty is preferred instead. In other words, the Synod ceases to be regarded as the principal organ for securing the faith, and the ecclesiological crisis is transformed into a personal or limited matter, detached from the life of the Church as a body that lives “in the Holy Spirit.”

C. The practice of walling off [ἀποτείχιση] is often theologically overloaded, acquiring a content that exceeds its proper function. Normally, walling off is an act of breaking ecclesiastical communion with bearers of heresy for personal soteriological reasons, but also a means of creating conditions that will lead to the convocation of an Orthodox Synod for the condemnation of heretics (regardless of whether or when it will take place). Walling off is not a definitive condemnation; however, when it is turned into a means of “private condemnation,” it substitutes the synodal process and alters the nature of the Church. This does not mean that we cease to judge the heretical practices of individuals, but our critique must remain within the Orthodox ecclesiastical ethos, without insults or personal characterizations.

D. Confessional zeal, without ecclesiological discernment between heresy and heretics who have not been condemned, risks ending up in a private ecclesiology which, despite the use of strict patristic phraseology, does not express the living life of the Church. The defense of the Orthodox faith cannot be confined to fragmentary measures or personal certainties; what is required is the complete integration of three elements: doctrine, confessional zeal, and synodality. Only through this synthesis does the Church truly bear witness to her faith and live the fullness of Christian life in the Holy Spirit.

E. The problem that remains and must be examined is how Synodality will function today, so that an Orthodox Synod may be convened for the condemnation of the heretics. The fragmented groups of those who have walled themselves off, it appears, are not concerned with this matter.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_11.html